Author Topic: Sacred Cow: A game/series/Dev that is held in the highest regard that you hate  (Read 8316 times)

burningdoom

PRO Supporter

-Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - I love the 2D and handheld entries in the series. But I've tried more than once to get into this game, I just can't do it. Everything is so simplistic and boring. Big open areas with a whole lot of emptiness. The lock-on battle-system I think is stupid. And I hate Navi.

-Super Mario 64 - More big open nothingness here. A whole lot of repetition of levels too, which just makes it that much more boring to me.

-MMOs - Someone else already explained in this thread pretty much how I feel. I'm already kind of anti-social, so it makes sense for me.

-Gears of War - Run for cover, pop-up and shoot. Then run to the next cover. Rinse-and-repeat. Not a fan of duck-and-cover gameplay.

-Fallout 3 - I really, really SHOULD like this game. I love the Elder Scrolls games. I loved Kingdoms of Amalur. I love open-world games. But I just couldn't get into this one. And I tried more than once. Boring dialogue from most characters made me leave mid-conversation. A lot of the same dreary, dirty, and delapitated landscapes. And I really didn't like the VATs system. If you didn't use the VATs system, it seems you'd just be wasting ammo, too.

-Stealth Games - Yeah, as an entire genre. I just don't have the patience. Usually I get about 15-20 minutes in, I get bored, then I go down in a blaze of glory trying to take as many out with me as I can.

-Strategy Games - Again, no patience. Seeing a pattern here? Most strategy games are just too slow-moving and feels too much like a chore to me.

gf78

-Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - I love the 2D and handheld entries in the series. But I've tried more than once to get into this game, I just can't do it. Everything is so simplistic and boring. Big open areas with a whole lot of emptiness. The lock-on battle-system I think is stupid. And I hate Navi.

-Super Mario 64 - More big open nothingness here. A whole lot of repetition of levels too, which just makes it that much more boring to me.

-MMOs - Someone else already explained in this thread pretty much how I feel. I'm already kind of anti-social, so it makes sense for me.

-Gears of War - Run for cover, pop-up and shoot. Then run to the next cover. Rinse-and-repeat. Not a fan of duck-and-cover gameplay.

-Fallout 3 - I really, really SHOULD like this game. I love the Elder Scrolls games. I loved Kingdoms of Amalur. I love open-world games. But I just couldn't get into this one. And I tried more than once. Boring dialogue from most characters made me leave mid-conversation. A lot of the same dreary, dirty, and delapitated landscapes. And I really didn't like the VATs system. If you didn't use the VATs system, it seems you'd just be wasting ammo, too.

-Stealth Games - Yeah, as an entire genre. I just don't have the patience. Usually I get about 15-20 minutes in, I get bored, then I go down in a blaze of glory trying to take as many out with me as I can.

-Strategy Games - Again, no patience. Seeing a pattern here? Most strategy games are just too slow-moving and feels too much like a chore to me.

Very few strategy games I actually have enjoyed.  For me, my favorites would be Warcraft, StarCraft (all versions) and Halo Wars.  Shogun, Command & Conquer and others...I just couldn't get into them.

As for stealth games, it just depends.  I love the Metal Gear games where stealth is the preferred method, but not necessary to complete your goals.  Assassin's Creed is fairly forgiving as well.  But I never could play too much Splinter Cell.  It took the stealth to the extreme and you would die if you made the slightest mistake.  Where I would enjoy hiding in the shadows in Metal Gear, it was a chore and test of my endurance to do so in Splinter Cell.

I really, really loved Fallout 3.  New Vegas not so much.  I enjoy that type of open world exploration, but some games "click" with me while others don't.  I really didn't like Morrowind.  Oblivion was ok, but nothing special.  Skyrim I put an insane amount of time into.  Same for Dragon Age.  Never finished the first two, but couldn't put Inquisition down.

Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 I think we both feel pretty much the same way about. 

Someone else brought up Smash Bros. and honestly, I have mixed feelings about it.  I love the concept.  The original on the N64 was a lot of fun.  Melee on Gamecube was spectacular.  I didn't get too much into Brawl because I pretty much despised the Wii and it's waggle-wand controls.  I picked up the new one for me & the kids and honestly, I don't care for it.  Everything is so chaotic and random.  Hell, we don't even know who won until the match is over and tells us who won.  It's just this big, flashing, spinning ball of sensory overload which saps the fun from it for me. 
Currently playing:  Last of Us Part II Remastered, Cyberpunk 2077 Ultimate Edition
Currently listening to:  Iron Maiden & Ghost
Currently Watching:  Cyberpunk Edgerunners & Last of Us

indenton

Someone else brought up Smash Bros. and honestly, I have mixed feelings about it.  I love the concept.  The original on the N64 was a lot of fun.  Melee on Gamecube was spectacular.  I didn't get too much into Brawl because I pretty much despised the Wii and it's waggle-wand controls.  I picked up the new one for me & the kids and honestly, I don't care for it.  Everything is so chaotic and random.  Hell, we don't even know who won until the match is over and tells us who won.  It's just this big, flashing, spinning ball of sensory overload which saps the fun from it for me.
It sounds like someone was playing 8-player Smash, it really is a mode that I thought I would enjoy.  That is until you try it out and all tactics go to hell and generally saps out all the enjoyment as you simply can't keep up with anything.  Smash Tour is also a mess, like you said it feels far too random, a bit of a waste of a mode in my opinion. 

Despite that, it's still a game I hold dear to me as far as the Wii U is concerned. 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2015, 02:39:42 pm by indenton »

dreama1

Where do I start?  I'm sure there's a hell of a list.  I don't really hate any of these.  I just don't get the hype.

Halo:  Sure it got it right first.  It's ok, but I don't get the camping out for the newest one.

Madden:  Why do we need a copy every year? 

Call of Duty: I really liked it at first, but it wore out it's welcome.  It was fun to play online before 12 year olds started having sex with my mom.

Shenmue:  With #3 coming there has been a shit-ton of hype.  I always hear "Shenmue 3" on folks dream games to play.  I tried the first and second one.  It's just not for me.

That's a good start to the list.  I can't think of much else right now.

Because it sells like crack cocain every year. People will gladly sell out there fellow gamers  to keep supporting harmful business practices. If it has the EA or Activision stamp on it it's the kiss of death.


turf

PRO Supporter

Where do I start?  I'm sure there's a hell of a list.  I don't really hate any of these.  I just don't get the hype.

Halo:  Sure it got it right first.  It's ok, but I don't get the camping out for the newest one.

Madden:  Why do we need a copy every year? 

Call of Duty: I really liked it at first, but it wore out it's welcome.  It was fun to play online before 12 year olds started having sex with my mom.

Shenmue:  With #3 coming there has been a shit-ton of hype.  I always hear "Shenmue 3" on folks dream games to play.  I tried the first and second one.  It's just not for me.

That's a good start to the list.  I can't think of much else right now.

Because it sells like crack cocain every year. People will gladly sell out there fellow gamers  to keep supporting harmful business practices. If it has the EA or Activision stamp on it it's the kiss of death.

I'm not saying I hate them.  I just say they're played out.  COD 3&4 were fantastic.  I played the hell out of both of those.  The small increments just didn't do anything for me. 

Madden has turned into just a yearly roster update.  Why there's hype, I don't know.


maximo310

Smash 4- It looks and plays smoothly, but there are a lot of  technical things that have been removed from Brawl and Melee. As a result, the new system doesn't allow for people to compete in high-level play because of mostly rolls that are too powerful, and that the shields aren't effective enough. I'm sticking with Project M unless they fix some of these issues in  future updates.

I disagree, I think the changes they've made are for the best, especially the new ledge mechanics which are significantly better than that of Melee, Brawl & Project M.  The character patches here and there will be just fine, no melee mode, just play melee.  You're entitled to your opinion and preference but that don't mean Smash 4 is bad at all. 

Sorry about that, I just don't like seeing a game that I'm quite passionate about in a thread like this
The reason that the new ledge mechanics are worse is because ledge-hogging was a very important technical skill in Brawl and Project M; now ledge trumping is pretty useless for advanced strategy it only helps to get back on the platform easily. Trying to use this new mechanic to ko other people is nearly impossible due to the frame data of the game.  The frame data is why the roll is way too powerful and why the shields don't last long enough. It also is the reason that it slows down the flow of gameplay and encourages people to play very defensively, because being aggressive will not work with the game's mechanics. Having that frame data along with the removal of advanced mechanics present in Brawl and Melee means that its going to become very difficult to push the boundaries of competitive play to a level that will not match the likes seen in Project M and Melee.  This game was designed in mind for trying to appeal to everyone, but in reality I think that many competitive players and people looking to play at a higher skill level will be dissapointed from what Smash 4 offers.

indenton

Smash 4- It looks and plays smoothly, but there are a lot of  technical things that have been removed from Brawl and Melee. As a result, the new system doesn't allow for people to compete in high-level play because of mostly rolls that are too powerful, and that the shields aren't effective enough. I'm sticking with Project M unless they fix some of these issues in  future updates.

I disagree, I think the changes they've made are for the best, especially the new ledge mechanics which are significantly better than that of Melee, Brawl & Project M.  The character patches here and there will be just fine, no melee mode, just play melee.  You're entitled to your opinion and preference but that don't mean Smash 4 is bad at all. 

Sorry about that, I just don't like seeing a game that I'm quite passionate about in a thread like this
The reason that the new ledge mechanics are worse is because ledge-hogging was a very important technical skill in Brawl and Project M; now ledge trumping is pretty useless for advanced strategy it only helps to get back on the platform easily. Trying to use this new mechanic to ko other people is nearly impossible due to the frame data of the game.  The frame data is why the roll is way too powerful and why the shields don't last long enough. It also is the reason that it slows down the flow of gameplay and encourages people to play very defensively, because being aggressive will not work with the game's mechanics. Having that frame data along with the removal of advanced mechanics present in Brawl and Melee means that its going to become very difficult to push the boundaries of competitive play to a level that will not match the likes seen in Project M and Melee.  This game was designed in mind for trying to appeal to everyone, but in reality I think that many competitive players and people looking to play at a higher skill level will be dissapointed from what Smash 4 offers.

How is ledge-hogging 'technical skill', it's a cheap exploit of preventing someone from grabbing a ledge even if they could reach it.  The new ledge mechanic gives EVERYONE a fighting chance of recovery back onto the stage, but you're still left vulnerable.  Once you start to grab a ledge in succession, the invincibility wears off.  This gives all players a fighting change when off-stage.  Also from a players point of view which do you prefer: a ledge-hog KO or a meteor spike KO.  The far more gratifying one is still very much present in Smash 4.  You might not like the new mechanics of Smash 4, but the changes that have been made haven't made it a worse game.  They just zone in on what Sakurai wanted to create all along, an all-star fighting game with easy accessibility.  But it still holds all of competitive tech which you crave, you just need to step out of your hermit shell and give it a chance. 

maximo310

Smash 4- It looks and plays smoothly, but there are a lot of  technical things that have been removed from Brawl and Melee. As a result, the new system doesn't allow for people to compete in high-level play because of mostly rolls that are too powerful, and that the shields aren't effective enough. I'm sticking with Project M unless they fix some of these issues in  future updates.

I disagree, I think the changes they've made are for the best, especially the new ledge mechanics which are significantly better than that of Melee, Brawl & Project M.  The character patches here and there will be just fine, no melee mode, just play melee.  You're entitled to your opinion and preference but that don't mean Smash 4 is bad at all. 

Sorry about that, I just don't like seeing a game that I'm quite passionate about in a thread like this
The reason that the new ledge mechanics are worse is because ledge-hogging was a very important technical skill in Brawl and Project M; now ledge trumping is pretty useless for advanced strategy it only helps to get back on the platform easily. Trying to use this new mechanic to ko other people is nearly impossible due to the frame data of the game.  The frame data is why the roll is way too powerful and why the shields don't last long enough. It also is the reason that it slows down the flow of gameplay and encourages people to play very defensively, because being aggressive will not work with the game's mechanics. Having that frame data along with the removal of advanced mechanics present in Brawl and Melee means that its going to become very difficult to push the boundaries of competitive play to a level that will not match the likes seen in Project M and Melee.  This game was designed in mind for trying to appeal to everyone, but in reality I think that many competitive players and people looking to play at a higher skill level will be dissapointed from what Smash 4 offers.

How is ledge-hogging 'technical skill', it's a cheap exploit of preventing someone from grabbing a ledge even if they could reach it.  The new ledge mechanic gives EVERYONE a fighting chance of recovery back onto the stage, but you're still left vulnerable.  Once you start to grab a ledge in succession, the invincibility wears off.  This gives all players a fighting change when off-stage.  Also from a players point of view which do you prefer: a ledge-hog KO or a meteor spike KO.  The far more gratifying one is still very much present in Smash 4.  You might not like the new mechanics of Smash 4, but the changes that have been made haven't made it a worse game.  They just zone in on what Sakurai wanted to create all along, an all-star fighting game with easy accessibility.  But it still holds all of competitive tech which you crave, you just need to step out of your hermit shell and give it a chance.

I don't really agree with that;  ledge hogging in competitive play takes advantage of the game's mechanics to punish the other player since you gotta take any advantage you can get in competitive play. Ledge trumping has far less use since most people see that it is too risky of an option to use in a match and there are better ways to punish people. As for new mechanics, I think this match ( my bro vs a friend) clearly shows some of the flaws of the game in competitive matches. Keep in mind that both players have been playing the game since it came out so they are pretty experienced in the game, and it shows how Robin ( a normally slow character) can't seem to connect with Pac-Man at all during the fight because of too much frame data in the roll and that the shield refreshes too quickly. So far, this game doesn't seem more competitive than Melee and Project M; most of the fanbase for Smash comes from the hard won efforts of the competitive community. I think most people want a smash game like Project M.

abe

I think Assassin's Creed is pretty meh.
Currently playing: Persona 5 (PS4)

redblaze57

PRO Supporter

Anything done by Ninja Theory. Played all the way through enslaved thought it felt very bland gameplay wise, and the ending pissed me off the same way Assassin's Creed 3 did. Played a bit of Heavenly Sword did not enjoy it. And D.m.C. while their are things I'd like to see brought over like how easy it was to change weapons mid-combo and control of the camera, the bad to me far out weighed the good.

indenton

I don't really agree with that;  ledge hogging in competitive play takes advantage of the game's mechanics to punish the other player since you gotta take any advantage you can get in competitive play. Ledge trumping has far less use since most people see that it is too risky of an option to use in a match and there are better ways to punish people. As for new mechanics, I think this match ( my bro vs a friend) clearly shows some of the flaws of the game in competitive matches. Keep in mind that both players have been playing the game since it came out so they are pretty experienced in the game, and it shows how Robin ( a normally slow character) can't seem to connect with Pac-Man at all during the fight because of too much frame data in the roll and that the shield refreshes too quickly. So far, this game doesn't seem more competitive than Melee and Project M; most of the fanbase for Smash comes from the hard won efforts of the competitive community. I think most people want a smash game like Project M.

Yes, of course it isn't as competitive as a hack specifically designed to the full-fledged fighting game that you know and love.  If you knew anything about Sakurai's design philosophy, then I don't know why you would of expected anything of that calibur from Smash 4 to begin with.  I still stand firm that Smash 4 is the definitive experience, an amazing cast of crazy characters (the Duck Hunt Duo being a personal favourite inclusion for me)with the competitive 'potential' for the scene which Nintendo is finally acknowledging. 

Note I said potential, it might not be as competitive but it has the tools to reach out and satisfy as broad an audience as possible. 

btw, who do you main?  I play R.O.B, Mr Game & Watch and Marth

spac316

I don't like Resident Evil. The Tank controls turned me off and I hated the limited storage space, though i understood it's purpose. Yeah, RE4 got a new play style but at that point I didn't care.

I don't care for the racing sim games like Gran Turismo or Forza Motorsport. Give me Mario Kart or Burnout over those anytime.

I absolutely despise the Call of Duty series and for what it stands for and all the feeble minded sheep who keep buying them each year.

I also hate Cliff Blezinski. He's such an arrogant tool. He's talented and his games were fun but I just don't like him.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2015, 11:34:22 pm by spac316 »

maximo310

I don't really agree with that;  ledge hogging in competitive play takes advantage of the game's mechanics to punish the other player since you gotta take any advantage you can get in competitive play. Ledge trumping has far less use since most people see that it is too risky of an option to use in a match and there are better ways to punish people. As for new mechanics, I think this match ( my bro vs a friend) clearly shows some of the flaws of the game in competitive matches. Keep in mind that both players have been playing the game since it came out so they are pretty experienced in the game, and it shows how Robin ( a normally slow character) can't seem to connect with Pac-Man at all during the fight because of too much frame data in the roll and that the shield refreshes too quickly. So far, this game doesn't seem more competitive than Melee and Project M; most of the fanbase for Smash comes from the hard won efforts of the competitive community. I think most people want a smash game like Project M.

Yes, of course it isn't as competitive as a hack specifically designed to the full-fledged fighting game that you know and love.  If you knew anything about Sakurai's design philosophy, then I don't know why you would of expected anything of that calibur from Smash 4 to begin with.  I still stand firm that Smash 4 is the definitive experience, an amazing cast of crazy characters (the Duck Hunt Duo being a personal favourite inclusion for me)with the competitive 'potential' for the scene which Nintendo is finally acknowledging. 

Note I said potential, it might not be as competitive but it has the tools to reach out and satisfy as broad an audience as possible. 

btw, who do you main?  I play R.O.B, Mr Game & Watch and Marth
That's the problem though; because Sakurai is so worried about making the game "perfect" for as big of an audience of the game; such a design philosophy actually hurts the game in the long run. Here's what my bro has to say, and I think he sums up the argument against Smash 4 pretty well with some of my ideas:

I can see that you're not really sure about the validity of your statement if you feel the need to put potential in quotations. Yeah, at the time Brawl had a lot of potential too, but it really dropped off because it isn't as engaging as the other entries in the series. Every time you make a sequel you compete against yourself to create the best product as possible, since people will naturally have their own expectations beforehand. I understand that Sakurai has his own notions about how Smash should be and how it ought to be played, but not everyone feels the same. If I were to compare competitive games to pools, then games should ideally slope from a shallow end to a deep end (shallow end just for splashing around and having fun and the deep end for more advanced things like diving). Sm4sh has the unfortunate predicament of  being  shallow at one end without much of a curve toward a deep end. Sure, it's still possible to dive but it's much more limited in what you can do. After playing the game extensively and attending a few tournaments, the game overall feels sluggish. My character doesn't always control the way I want them too and there aren't many ways to speed this up, like l-canceling in past titles. I can still have fun with the game, but I certainly don't play to show my prowess at Smash.

I'm going to avoid posting the obvious ones like COD and Madden because I think they get enough hate already because of how popular they are. I am definitely one the haters when it comes to both these franchises.


Anything published/developed by Ubisoft over the past 10-years: Seriously though, I have yet to play an Ubisoft game that wasn't complete overhyped, mediocre shit. Assassins Creed and Far Cry being the poster children of this model of crap. Rayman is also stupid, and probably one of the most ridiculous and dumb platformer mascots I've ever seen. Bubsy is a better character. I could go into much greater detail on why I hate all of Ubisoft's IPs, but I'll just leave this for now. Oh, the only good thing that has come out of Ubisoft is South Park Stick of Truth, but in all fairness it was developed by Obsidion and was originally a THQ IP before they went under.


Uncharted series: Boring with a mix of occasionally buggy gameplay, this series is another extremely overrated mess that does not deserve the accolades or success it has garnered.


Earthbound: I went into playing this game wanting to like it so badly because of how revered and special this game is to many gamers. I played it for about 5-hours, hoping things would pick up, nope. Waited for the "quirkiness" of the characters and story to take effect, nope. Waited for me to just accept the combat system is f%$!ing awful and move past it, not a chance. In addition to that it has some of the worst graphics on the SNES I've ever seen. I kid you not, I thought to myself, "wow, this game could pass as an NES title" while playing it. I have absolutely no clue why so many gamers worship this game, none. It is definitely bottom tier in terms of RPGs I've played, especially when considering just SNES RPGs.






« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 10:05:16 am by bikingjahuty »

indenton

I don't really agree with that;  ledge hogging in competitive play takes advantage of the game's mechanics to punish the other player since you gotta take any advantage you can get in competitive play. Ledge trumping has far less use since most people see that it is too risky of an option to use in a match and there are better ways to punish people. As for new mechanics, I think this match ( my bro vs a friend) clearly shows some of the flaws of the game in competitive matches. Keep in mind that both players have been playing the game since it came out so they are pretty experienced in the game, and it shows how Robin ( a normally slow character) can't seem to connect with Pac-Man at all during the fight because of too much frame data in the roll and that the shield refreshes too quickly. So far, this game doesn't seem more competitive than Melee and Project M; most of the fanbase for Smash comes from the hard won efforts of the competitive community. I think most people want a smash game like Project M.

Yes, of course it isn't as competitive as a hack specifically designed to the full-fledged fighting game that you know and love.  If you knew anything about Sakurai's design philosophy, then I don't know why you would of expected anything of that calibur from Smash 4 to begin with.  I still stand firm that Smash 4 is the definitive experience, an amazing cast of crazy characters (the Duck Hunt Duo being a personal favourite inclusion for me)with the competitive 'potential' for the scene which Nintendo is finally acknowledging. 

Note I said potential, it might not be as competitive but it has the tools to reach out and satisfy as broad an audience as possible. 

btw, who do you main?  I play R.O.B, Mr Game & Watch and Marth
That's the problem though; because Sakurai is so worried about making the game "perfect" for as big of an audience of the game; such a design philosophy actually hurts the game in the long run. Here's what my bro has to say, and I think he sums up the argument against Smash 4 pretty well with some of my ideas:

I can see that you're not really sure about the validity of your statement if you feel the need to put potential in quotations. Yeah, at the time Brawl had a lot of potential too, but it really dropped off because it isn't as engaging as the other entries in the series. Every time you make a sequel you compete against yourself to create the best product as possible, since people will naturally have their own expectations beforehand. I understand that Sakurai has his own notions about how Smash should be and how it ought to be played, but not everyone feels the same. If I were to compare competitive games to pools, then games should ideally slope from a shallow end to a deep end (shallow end just for splashing around and having fun and the deep end for more advanced things like diving). Sm4sh has the unfortunate predicament of  being  shallow at one end without much of a curve toward a deep end. Sure, it's still possible to dive but it's much more limited in what you can do. After playing the game extensively and attending a few tournaments, the game overall feels sluggish. My character doesn't always control the way I want them too and there aren't many ways to speed this up, like l-canceling in past titles. I can still have fun with the game, but I certainly don't play to show my prowess at Smash.

You know I tried to steer this in the direction that I'm agreeing that the game has its impasses, but now you're taking stabs at my vocabulary, well done.  Just tell all that to the existing competitive scene of Smash 4, I play the game competitively 'For Glory' and whatnot (if that even counts) but nothing tournament worthy.  What I mean is that because I'm not quite as involved in the competitive tech behind the game, I just don't notice any of this, it doesn't affect me, I'm too busy enjoying the game.  Roll-spamming in for glory is pretty cheap, I haven't noticed anything with the shields yet though.